From: Bhrihskwobhloukstroy
Message: 68643
Date: 2012-02-29
>————————————————————————————————————
>
>
>> 2012/2/29, Torsten <tgpedersen@...>:
>> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy
>> > <bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> 2012/2/28, Torsten <tgpedersen@>:
>> >>
>> >> >> > 'calles' has root 'a', thus it is a 'mot populaire' and as
>> >> >> > such not directly descended from PIE by the same route as
>> >> >> > 'regular' Latin. Ie. it is a loan.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> No.
>> >> >> 1) 'Mot populaire' doesn't mean 'loan'.
>> >> >
>> >> > I think it does.
>> >
>> >> Please demonstrate it
>> >>
>> >
>> > That I think so?
>> > I assume you want me to tell why I prefer that explanation.
>> > It's like this:
>> >
>> > 1. The 'mots populaires' belong to a particlar semantic sphere,
>> > namely that pertaining to lower classes of Roman society. You
>> > would not see that skewed distribution if they had been descended
>> > from PIE the same way as other Latin words.
>> >
>> > 2. Kuhn pointed out that many Latin words with root -a- have
>> > correspondences with root -a- in Germanic.
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/30032?var=0&l=1
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/36941?var=0&l=1
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/36946?var=0&l=1
>> > I am sure those -a-'s can 'explained' as reflexes of -h2-, but I
>> > feel that is contrived. Given the etnic and linguistic environment
>> > at the time of the ethnogensis of Romans and Germani I prefer to
>> > ascribe them to a language or several related languages present
>> > both places at the requisite time.
>> >
>> >> >
>> >> >> 2) There are plenty of sources for Latin /a/
>> >> >> e.g. from */e/ after PIE pure velar */k/
>> >> >
>> >> > I also think pure velars indicate loans.
>> >
>> >> Same as above
>> >
>> > Pure velars tend to occur with -a-. Therefore I suspect they have
>> > the same
>> > origin.
>> >
>
>
> Please add your comments *after* the paragraph you comment on, so that Brian
> or I won't have to do it for you.
>
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy
> <bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@...> wrote:
>>
>> Right guess, I wanted You to demonstrate why You prefer that
>> explanation
> I don't understand your use of 'demonstrate' in that context.
>————————————————————————————————————
>> On one side You are so tough that You want all semantic groups to
>> show *exactly* the same phonemic distribution, although one can
>> always group words with one phoneme and then affirm that such
>> phoneme characterizes their prevailing meaning ('populaire' is very
>> vague for the complex of Latin words with /a/ of non-laryngeal
>> origin: cacumen calamitas calare calidus callis calx cancer candere
>> cardo carina carinare caro carpere carpinus carrere caterua scabere
>> scalpere scamnum scandere scatere; auillus caudex cauere cauilla
>> cauos fauere fauila fauis(s)ae Fauonius Faui fauos fraus laus lauere
>> pauere rauos; malleus malus manere manus marcere mare margo maritus
>> mateola; canis fax quaerere qualum/s quatere squalus suasum uacca
>> uagus ualgus ualuae uas uastus; flagrare frangere gradior labra lac
>> magnus nassa trabs; fraces lapis latus patere sacena aries gramen
>> gramiae trahere faba; castrare farcire farnus fastigium ianitrices
>> mala nancire pando panus passer quattuor sarcire sarire spargere
>> uannus);
>> You are quite severe when You define 'contrived' the explanations
>> through *h2 (but that's simply Your "feeling", as You write);
>
> Yes. Thus I don't 'define' it as contrived.
>
>————————————————————————————————————
>> on the other side You are so confident as to postulate whole
>> languages (never attested as such) in the ethnogesis of Romans and
>> Germani (which languages?)
>
> Venetic. Possibly Dacian/Thracian.————————————————————————————————————
>————————————————————————————————————
>> You can be skeptical about laryngeal etymologies, but then You
>> must be even more skeptical about substrates;
>
> No.————————————————————————————————————
>————————————————————————————————————
>
>> otherwise You can postulate substrates, but a fortiori You have
>> to accept laryngeal and other hereditary explanations
>
> No.
>————————————————————————————————————
>
>> even if these make redundant substrate hypotheses
>
> They don't.
>
>
>
> Torsten